Canada's court OK's group sex

Discussion in 'Vaginarium' started by BATMANs, Dec 21, 2005.

  1. BATMANs

    BATMANs New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,518
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
  2. cdl

    cdl New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    635
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
     
  3. BATMANs

    BATMANs New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,518
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    Group sex among consenting adults is neither prostitution nor a threat to society, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Wednesday as it lifted a ban on so-called “swingers” clubs.

    In a ruling that radically changes the way courts determine what poses a threat to the population, the top court threw out the conviction of a Montreal man who ran a club where members could have group sex in a private room behind locked doors.

    “Consensual conduct behind code-locked doors can hardly be supposed to jeopardize a society as vigorous and tolerant as Canadian society,” said the opinion of the seven-to-two majority, written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.



    The decision does not affect laws against prostitution because no money changed hands among the adults having sex.

    ‘Bawdy house’ proprietor's appeal
    The court was reviewing an appeal by Jean-Paul Labaye, who ran the L’Orage (Thunderstorm) club. He had been convicted in 1999 of running a “bawdy house” — defined as a place where prostitution or acts of public indecency took place.

    Labaye — who is still running L’Orage despite his earlier conviction — said he was relieved, and would now go ahead with a new venture with backing from a group of Florida investors.

    “We hope clients will be more calm. This will probably lead the way to a good future,” he told reporters, saying he was looking at adding a Jacuzzi and a swimming pool.

    Labaye said he had about 2,000 regular clients who paid around $20 ($17 U.S.) a year for a membership card.

    Lawyers for Labaye and the owner of another swingers’ club in Montreal argued that consensual sex among groups of adults behind closed doors was neither indecent or a risk to society.

    The Supreme Court judges agreed.

    “Criminal indecency or obscenity must rest on actual harm or a significant risk of harm to individuals or society. The Crown failed to establish this essential element of the offense. (Its) case must therefore fail,” McLachlin wrote.

    In indecency cases, Canadian courts have traditionally probed whether the acts in question “breached the rules of conduct necessary for the proper functioning of society”. The Supreme Court ruled that from now on, judges should pay more attention to whether society would be actively harmed.

    Deviant, maybe, but not dangerous
    This seemed to ensure there could be no repeat of Labaye’s original conviction for causing “social harm” by allowing degrading and dehumanizing group sex to take place.

    The judges said that just because most Canadians might disapprove of swingers’ clubs, this did not necessarily mean the establishments were socially dangerous.

    “The causal link between images of sexuality and anti-social behavior cannot be assumed. Attitudes in themselves are not crimes, however deviant they may be or disgusting they may appear,” the judges said, noting that no one had been pressured to have sex or had paid for sex in the cases the court considered.

    “The autonomy and liberty of members of the public was not affected by unwanted confrontation with the sexual activity in question ... only those already disposed to this sort of sexual activity were allowed to participate and watch,” they said.

    They also dismissed the idea — raised during Labaye’s original trial — that group sex was dangerous because it could result in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

    “Sex that is not indecent can transmit disease while indecent sex might not,” they ruled.
     
  4. lauren

    lauren Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    38,880
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Palo Alto, CA
  5. Daddy O

    Daddy O Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    4,151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Armadillo World Headquarters
  6. dark cloud

    dark cloud New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UCF
    Good for them.
     
  7. Midgetized

    Midgetized Don't mess with Douche Cat

    Joined:
    May 29, 2000
    Messages:
    49,189
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    :cool: The government has no reason for butting in on that.
     
  8. huntz0r

    huntz0r New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    15,951
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    What a silly thing to be debating.

    Of course, group sex is for dirty sluts anyway... but whatever
     
  9. charms119

    charms119 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    575
    Likes Received:
    0
    awsome....lol
     

Share This Page